politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cameron’s big mistake was not killing off the debates a yea

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cameron’s big mistake was not killing off the debates a year ago

As an incumbent PM facing an opposition leader with as poor personal ratings as Ed Miliband’s it has been apparent for a long time that the best outcome for DC would be for no debates to take place. Why give Ed a platform that puts him equal with Dave?

Read the full story here

RochdalePioneers

Remember the man in the chicken suit following the likes of Brian Malwhinney round on the campaign trail in 1997 after their chicken run?

He'll be coming for Cameron. Presidential. But won't answer questions or debate with anyone.

Alistair

Cameron appeared beyond desperate there.

SouthamObserver

I am reminded of that song from the Monty Python Holy Grail film; that one about Brave Sir Robin:

Brave Sir Dave ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Dave turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dave!
("I never!")

CarlottaVance

The chap with 'Chicken' attached to him in today's soundbite is Miliband - why didn't he say he'd be happy to debate with the Greens. Being PM has its perks - Cameron would be daft not to use them......

RochdalePioneers

Even funnier was his attempt to turn the tables.

CAMERON - You're too chicken to debate the Greens
MILLIBAND - I'll debate anyone
CAMERON - See! He's chicken! He won't debate the Greens so I won't debate anyone

TheWatcher

SouthamObserver said:

I am reminded of that song from the Monty Python Holy Grail film; that one about Brave Sir Robin:

Brave Sir Dave ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Dave turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dave!
("I never!")

Well done, you've finally completed the transformation into tim.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Observer, one could as equally well level that charge at Miliband, who is keen for what is perceived as a rightwing party to be added, but dead against a leftwing addition. Both sides are just playing for advantage.

Also, a tactical retreat can make sense. And if it destroys the ridiculous debates, I wouldn't mind a bit.

Sunil_Prasannan

Even Gordon agreed to debates when he was clearly going to lose in the run up to 2010!

Morris_Dancer

Dr. Prasannan, you're being a tinker and you know it. Brown had nothing to lose and much to gain.

SandyRentool

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Even Gordon agreed to debates when he was clearly going to lose in the run up to 2010!

That's WHY he agreed - nothing to lose!

Anyway, a day dominated by a debate about the debates is another day closer to the GE without a magic bullet for the Tories.

TGOHF

Utterly naive to imagine that this is settled and isn't all part of a negotiation process.

The same brains trust thinking that whine up when Frau Merkel's boot polisher suggests that X,Y and Z cannot be renegotiated hence Dave should throw himself into the pit of abject failure.

Dave wants early debates and not many debates - and getting one with just him and Ed would also be beneficial. Lets see what is agreed...

Pong

Punch and Judy stuff - Ed definitely got the better of him in that round.

Still, It doesn't really matter. Prospective Con voters in marginals aren't going to vote for ed & not vote for dave because ed says he's weak. The dave running scared narrative will ding UKIP's dong though, which I guess is the point.

Indigo

FPT:

Tissue_Price said:

OblitusSumMe said:

No-one saw the current drop in oil prices coming that far off. If there had been another round of energy price increases last autumn then, politically, the policy would have been a winner.

Miliband's a politician who concentrated on the politics, rather than the economics, and is being caught out by events - not unlike many of his ilk. The danger comes from those politicians who are lucky at first, and begin to believe that they are good at the economics too. You might remember one. Name sounded a bit like "Lord on Drown"...

The trouble was that Miliband felt he had to introduce a policy - which could always be a hostage to fortune - so far out from the election, because his own personal polling was so dire.

But think of it from his perspective, poor man, here he is languishing in the personal polling, desperate for a policy:

Can't promise to splash around a bit chunk of money on all his favourite causes, because there isn't any, and people are likely to point out the reason there isn't any is because of the last Labour government which he was part of.

Can't announce a proper tax rise because it will scare the horses at the very least, and might well get respectable economists going on TV and accusing him of putting the recovery at risk, or wrecking the economy.

Can't play the prudence and responsibility card, because if he starts to look like he is even thinking about the merest possibility of supporting even some of the cuts his left wing will peel off to the Greens. Everyone knows he is going to have to make lots of cuts, but he can't say it or Mr MccLuskey will take away his pocket money.

Can't try and gee up the wavering WWC voters with a bit of law and order (especially after France) and a bit of flag waving, because his Guardianistas will have a fit and join either the LDs or the Greens

All he has left is making promises to batter unpopular businesses with much less profitability than the public believe over the head, and promise to make them be "fair", by which he means make a loss. Whilst trying to put a figleaf over the budget deficit by wittering about mansion taxes and gun license which won't pay the interest on the deficit for a fortnight.

Casino_Royale

BBC News comments supportive of Cameron's position and the inclusion of the Greens, and accusing Labour/Liberal Democrats of hypocrisy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30808252#dna-comments

Not representative, but still.. interesting.

Sunil_Prasannan

So Dave has nothing to gain from the debates? He's much more articulate than Ed. Nigel granted could be different.

Sunil_Prasannan

For the record, The Sunil has nothing against the Greens taking part in TV debates with the other four parties.

TGOHF

SouthamObserver said:

I am reminded of that song from the Monty Python Holy Grail film; that one about Brave Sir Robin:

Have you managed to scrape a nugget of bad news from yesterdays inflation figures yet SO ? I did spot that if you rented but didn't drive, travel or eat you would be worse off.

RochdalePioneers

SandyRentool said:

Anyway, a day dominated by a debate about the debates is another day closer to the GE without a magic bullet for the Tories.

Wrong.

As we speak, UKIP voters (who didn't defect from the Tories anyway it transpires) - inspired by Dave running away from even mentioning Europe or Immigration in his list of issues, and Dave running away from debating with Farage - are running back to the Tory camp as we speak!

Go look out the window! You will see streams of the lovable fruitcakes running back to the waiting arms of Shapps Green Fox who's standing at the end of that German road on that poster he signed off waiting for them. Look now!

Too late, you missed them.......

Tissue_Price

Mike's suggestion of killing off the debates completely this time last year would probably have been the best option, but I think "mostly forgotten by the time election year opened" is overselling it a bit.

As it is, Cameron will be able to declare a win when the Greens are included. Short-term pain. In the meantime, people are talking about the Greens, which suits.

Flightpath

RochdalePioneers said:

Remember the man in the chicken suit following the likes of Brian Malwhinney round on the campaign trail in 1997 after their chicken run?

He'll be coming for Cameron. Presidential. But won't answer questions or debate with anyone.

What about the man on the runner bean suit? Why won't Miliband debate the Greens? Possibly because his one big idea is resolutely anti Green. He wants to make scarce energy, which is - he says - destroying the planet, cheaper and easier to use.
Its pretty shameful to weaponize energy anyway.

Socrates

TheWatcher said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am reminded of that song from the Monty Python Holy Grail film; that one about Brave Sir Robin:

Brave Sir Dave ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Dave turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dave!
("I never!")

Well done, you've finally completed the transformation into tim.

Actually, Southam, while someone I disagree with on a lot of matters, is independent minded and criticises all the parties when they disagree with him. Unlike some other posters around here, who are steadfastly partisan, like, for example, yourself.

Socrates

Cameron's biography has just come out:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0f/TheWhiteFeather.jpg/220px-TheWhiteFeather.jpg

Tissue_Price

Socrates said:

TheWatcher said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am reminded of that song from the Monty Python Holy Grail film; that one about Brave Sir Robin:

Brave Sir Dave ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Dave turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dave!
("I never!")

Well done, you've finally completed the transformation into tim.

Actually, Southam, while someone I disagree with on a lot of matters, is independent minded and criticises all the parties when they disagree with him. Unlike some other posters around here, who are steadfastly partisan, like, for example, yourself.

Says the man who thought on the previous thread that DC was ducking the debate because he "is obviously aware that his policies and arguments aren't as good as Farage's".

Neil

Tissue_Price said:

Socrates said:

TheWatcher said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am reminded of that song from the Monty Python Holy Grail film; that one about Brave Sir Robin:

Brave Sir Dave ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Dave turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dave!
("I never!")

Well done, you've finally completed the transformation into tim.

Actually, Southam, while someone I disagree with on a lot of matters, is independent minded and criticises all the parties when they disagree with him. Unlike some other posters around here, who are steadfastly partisan, like, for example, yourself.

Says the man who thought on the previous thread that DC was ducking the debate because he "is obviously aware that his policies and arguments aren't as good as Farage's".

That was a keeper.

Richard_Nabavi

I think Mike has this wrong. The choice is NOT between Cameron taking part in the debates or not taking part in the debates. It is about jostling for advantage, with the fall-back position being the very acceptable one (from Cameron's point of view) of debating with Miliband only (or possibly with Miliband in one, and Miliband and Clegg in another), but not attending the 'other party leaders' debate.

Alternatively, he gets his way and gets the Greens included in the 'other parties' debate, which, objectively, is a not unreasonable position, if the idea is to hear a selection of different views from outside the potential parties of government.

Alistair

How can you possibly label Milliband chicken when he said twice that he would debate whoever was put forward?

TheWatcher

Socrates said:

TheWatcher said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am reminded of that song from the Monty Python Holy Grail film; that one about Brave Sir Robin:

Brave Sir Dave ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Dave turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dave!
("I never!")

Well done, you've finally completed the transformation into tim.

Actually, Southam, while someone I disagree with on a lot of matters, is independent minded and criticises all the parties when they disagree with him. Unlike some other posters around here, who are steadfastly partisan, like, for example, yourself.

Socrates accusing another of being partisan? I think my sides have just split.

Sunil_Prasannan

Alistair said:

How can you possibly label Milliband chicken when he said twice that he would debate whoever was put forward?

Debate WITH whomever was put forward?

Socrates

TheWatcher said:

Socrates said:

TheWatcher said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am reminded of that song from the Monty Python Holy Grail film; that one about Brave Sir Robin:

Brave Sir Dave ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Dave turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dave!
("I never!")

Well done, you've finally completed the transformation into tim.

Actually, Southam, while someone I disagree with on a lot of matters, is independent minded and criticises all the parties when they disagree with him. Unlike some other posters around here, who are steadfastly partisan, like, for example, yourself.

Socrates accusing another of being partisan? I think my sides have just split.

I've criticised Farage on topics ranging from international aid to foreign policy towards Russia. And I've praised Cameron on things like marriage and (until he buckled) tough demands on the EU. When have you criticised David Cameron on anything of substance? When have you praised Farage?

RochdalePioneers

Flightpath said:

What about the man on the runner bean suit? Why won't Miliband debate the Greens?

Because he will debate anyone. Anyone includes the greens

<<Julius Nicholson>> You see what I'm doing? I'm eating your spin (onion bhajee) and replacing it with the actual facts.<</Julius Nicholson>>

Indigo

Richard_Nabavi said:

I think Mike has this wrong. The choice is NOT between Cameron taking part in the debates or not taking part in the debates. It is about jostling for advantage, with the fall-back position being the very acceptable one (from Cameron's point of view) of debating with Miliband only (or possibly with Miliband in one, and Miliband and Clegg in another), but not attending the 'other party leaders' debate.

I can see at least the LDs and UKIP reaching for their lawyers at that point, there is no way that Dave and Ed can sit on the TV for 2-3 hour long debates and then anyone can claim with a straight face they are getting equal coverage with the other major parties.

Socrates

Richard_Nabavi said:

I think Mike has this wrong. The choice is NOT between Cameron taking part in the debates or not taking part in the debates. It is about jostling for advantage, with the fall-back position being the very acceptable one (from Cameron's point of view) of debating with Miliband only (or possibly with Miliband in one, and Miliband and Clegg in another), but not attending the 'other party leaders' debate.

There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.

TGOHF

Richard_Nabavi said:

I think Mike has this wrong. The choice is NOT between Cameron taking part in the debates or not taking part in the debates. It is about jostling for advantage, with the fall-back position being the very acceptable one (from Cameron's point of view) of debating with Miliband only (or possibly with Miliband in one, and Miliband and Clegg in another), but not attending the 'other party leaders' debate.

Alternatively, he gets his way and gets the Greens included in the 'other parties' debate, which, objectively, is a not unreasonable position, if the idea is to hear a selection of different views from outside the potential parties of government.

Or OGH is willfully misrepresenting the situation for advantage.

Socrates

Tissue_Price said:

Socrates said:

TheWatcher said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am reminded of that song from the Monty Python Holy Grail film; that one about Brave Sir Robin:

Brave Sir Dave ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Dave turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dave!
("I never!")

Well done, you've finally completed the transformation into tim.

Actually, Southam, while someone I disagree with on a lot of matters, is independent minded and criticises all the parties when they disagree with him. Unlike some other posters around here, who are steadfastly partisan, like, for example, yourself.

Says the man who thought on the previous thread that DC was ducking the debate because he "is obviously aware that his policies and arguments aren't as good as Farage's".

It's evidently felt to be the case by CCHQ, which is why they won't put them on a stage together. If Cameron felt he had a better case than Farage, he would be happy to argue it against him publicly. But he's not.

Carnyx

Morris_Dancer said:

A Scottish dimension: let's say Cameron prevails and, with 3 or 4 debates, the Greens participate.

And the SNP don't. Would this harden the "Grr! Those Westminster types!" sentiment currently popular in Caledonia, or make no real difference?

It would make it very clear that Scottish MPs are seen as inferior to other MPs, unless they happen to be in the same party as English MPs, which is a remarkable doctrine for a Unionist party to hold. Just think about it. How that would be received by some. And in the current climate of promising the Vow.

It would also highlight Mr Miliband as Mr Murphy's boss.

OblitusSumMe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

A Scottish dimension: let's say Cameron prevails and, with 3 or 4 debates, the Greens participate.

And the SNP don't. Would this harden the "Grr! Those Westminster types!" sentiment currently popular in Caledonia, or make no real difference?

One assumes there will be a debate on Scottish TV between the SNP and other parties, and on Welsh TV with Plaid Cymru involved, just as in 2010.

Make too much of a fuss and they will just look absurd.

Make too little of a fuss and they look absurd/cowardly. You see the dilemma?

On a practical point: there is no such thing as Scottish TV: the broadcasts do not respect tbe border. Which raises the possibility of the broadcasts into Scotland being closed down by legal action (it has happened before) with the loss of those English viewers who also rely on the same transmitters.

Richard_Nabavi

Socrates said:

There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.

You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).

But you know that, of course.

Carnyx

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alistair said:

How can you possibly label Milliband chicken when he said twice that he would debate whoever was put forward?

Debate WITH whomever was put forward?

Debate with whomSOever? Or is that too archaic?

Neil

Socrates said:

Tissue_Price said:

Socrates said:

TheWatcher said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am reminded of that song from the Monty Python Holy Grail film; that one about Brave Sir Robin:

Brave Sir Dave ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Dave turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dave!
("I never!")

Well done, you've finally completed the transformation into tim.

Actually, Southam, while someone I disagree with on a lot of matters, is independent minded and criticises all the parties when they disagree with him. Unlike some other posters around here, who are steadfastly partisan, like, for example, yourself.

Says the man who thought on the previous thread that DC was ducking the debate because he "is obviously aware that his policies and arguments aren't as good as Farage's".

It's evidently felt to be the case by CCHQ, which is why they won't put them on a stage together. If Cameron felt he had a better case than Farage, he would be happy to argue it against him publicly. But he's not.

So Blair thought that Hague and Howard each had a better case to make than him?

Richard_Nabavi

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I think Mike has this wrong. The choice is NOT between Cameron taking part in the debates or not taking part in the debates. It is about jostling for advantage, with the fall-back position being the very acceptable one (from Cameron's point of view) of debating with Miliband only (or possibly with Miliband in one, and Miliband and Clegg in another), but not attending the 'other party leaders' debate.

I can see at least the LDs and UKIP reaching for their lawyers at that point, there is no way that Dave and Ed can sit on the TV for 2-3 hour long debates and then anyone can claim with a straight face they are getting equal coverage with the other major parties.

But that would be equally true in the broadcasters' current proposal. In fact it would be more true - in my fallback position suggestion, Cameron would generously be allowing the other three parties a higher proportion of the debate time.

Socrates

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.

You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).

But you know that, of course.

But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.

But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Carnyx, 'too archaic'? Verily, is it not!

Scott_P

@MichaelPDeacon: Yes, it's happening: the Pub Landlord is standing against Nigel Farage in South Thanet at the general election http://t.co/XPhpqCBdb5

Sunil_Prasannan

Carnyx said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alistair said:

How can you possibly label Milliband chicken when he said twice that he would debate whoever was put forward?

Debate WITH whomever was put forward?

Debate with whomSOever? Or is that too archaic?

I'm more worried about the lack of "with"

Richard_Nabavi

Socrates said:

But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.

No, it's predicated on a whole series of things, including most notably not wanting Farage to be portrayed as a serious player. (Since he isn't a serious player, this is fair enough).

Indigo

Carnyx said:

On a practical point: there is no such thing as Scottish TV: the broadcasts do not respect tbe border. Which raises the possibility of the broadcasts into Scotland being closed down by legal action (it has happened before) with the loss of those English viewers who also rely on the same transmitters.

What was the basis of that legal action ?

Eastwinger

OGH has this one totally wrong. Cam will either get his way or the debates won't happen.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. P, I wonder what the odds on him winning are. Hmm.

Socrates

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.

No, it's predicated on a whole series of things, including most notably not wanting Farage to be portrayed as a serious player. (Since he isn't a serious player, this is fair enough).

If he wasn't a serious player, he'd be shown up by being put in the big boy's debate and Cameron would be itching to include him. But he's not. Because Farage is a serious player, as shown by Cameron running scared of him.

You Tories are all hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas.

Pong

Scott_P said:

@MichaelPDeacon: Yes, it's happening: the Pub Landlord is standing against Nigel Farage in South Thanet at the general election http://t.co/XPhpqCBdb5

That's brilliant.

blackburn63

Tories can wriggle all they like, as Tebbitt says Cameron is frit. Farage finished off Clegg as a serious politician, Cameron is terrified of the same.

Indigo

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I think Mike has this wrong. The choice is NOT between Cameron taking part in the debates or not taking part in the debates. It is about jostling for advantage, with the fall-back position being the very acceptable one (from Cameron's point of view) of debating with Miliband only (or possibly with Miliband in one, and Miliband and Clegg in another), but not attending the 'other party leaders' debate.

I can see at least the LDs and UKIP reaching for their lawyers at that point, there is no way that Dave and Ed can sit on the TV for 2-3 hour long debates and then anyone can claim with a straight face they are getting equal coverage with the other major parties.

But that would be equally true in the broadcasters' current proposal. In fact it would be more true - in my fallback position suggestion, Cameron would generously be allowing the other three parties a higher proportion of the debate time.

I imagine everyone is waiting to see what the final proposal looks like before they reach for their rolodex and call their lawyer, no point on starting legal action on a negotiating position. Once the lawyers have had their say I would be surprised if this doesn't come down to 5-5-5 if it doesn't get cancelled altogether, of course the real game starts then, working out how to blame each other for the collapse.

taffys

There are already two belting one liners from Al Murray doing the rounds on twitter.

If nothing else, our nige is going to need a sense of humour....

Socrates

taffys said:

There are already two belting one liners from Al Murray doing the rounds on twitter.

If nothing else, our nige is going to need a sense of humour....

The Channel Tunnel line was brilliant. As was putting Boris Johnson on an island.

OblitusSumMe

Flightpath said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Remember the man in the chicken suit following the likes of Brian Malwhinney round on the campaign trail in 1997 after their chicken run?

He'll be coming for Cameron. Presidential. But won't answer questions or debate with anyone.

What about the man on the runner bean suit? Why won't Miliband debate the Greens? Possibly because his one big idea is resolutely anti Green. He wants to make scarce energy, which is - he says - destroying the planet, cheaper and easier to use.
Its pretty shameful to weaponize energy anyway.

Is it more accurate to classify all weaponry, in all of history, as being energy weapons or pressure weapons?

I think it's all about the pressure.

Richard_Nabavi

Socrates said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.

No, it's predicated on a whole series of things, including most notably not wanting Farage to be portrayed as a serious player. (Since he isn't a serious player, this is fair enough).

If he wasn't a serious player, he'd be shown up by being put in the big boy's debate and Cameron would be itching to include him. But he's not. Because Farage is a serious player, as shown by Cameron running scared of him.

Not at all. In a debate with Miliband, Cameron can quite reasonably counter any populist nonsense by pointing out inconsistencies or gaps in Labour's alternative (and vice versa, for that matter). In a debate with Farage, that would not be possible because there is no pretence that UKIP has a coherent platform; Farage is not trying to propose anything, he's trying to throw stones at Cameron's windows.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 63, over-egging the cake dramatically there. Clegg was like the Black Knight after fighting King Arthur. Yes, Farage stabbed him in the eye holes, but it wasn't the most difficult of tasks.

The result of that debate wasn't Farage killing a giant, but Clegg failing to regain credibility and Farage benefiting from having been generally considered to have won by a distance.

foxinsoxuk

SouthamObserver said:

I am reminded of that song from the Monty Python Holy Grail film; that one about Brave Sir Robin:

Brave Sir Dave ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Dave turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dave!
("I never!")

Python addicts may recall that Sir Robin escaped while the three headed giant was arguing with his other heads. He died at the end of the film when he got the bridgekeepers question wrong and was flung into the gorge.

So he avoided a battle that he would lose, only to be killed by an unanswerable question. He who lives and runs away lives to fight another day!

taffys

The Channel Tunnel line was brilliant. As was putting Boris Johnson on an island.

Some bloke waving a pint around....Who on earth is going to vote for that?

OblitusSumMe

Carnyx said:

Morris_Dancer said:

A Scottish dimension: let's say Cameron prevails and, with 3 or 4 debates, the Greens participate.

And the SNP don't. Would this harden the "Grr! Those Westminster types!" sentiment currently popular in Caledonia, or make no real difference?

It would make it very clear that Scottish MPs are seen as inferior to other MPs, unless they happen to be in the same party as English MPs, which is a remarkable doctrine for a Unionist party to hold. Just think about it. How that would be received by some. And in the current climate of promising the Vow.

It would also highlight Mr Miliband as Mr Murphy's boss.

OblitusSumMe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

A Scottish dimension: let's say Cameron prevails and, with 3 or 4 debates, the Greens participate.

And the SNP don't. Would this harden the "Grr! Those Westminster types!" sentiment currently popular in Caledonia, or make no real difference?

One assumes there will be a debate on Scottish TV between the SNP and other parties, and on Welsh TV with Plaid Cymru involved, just as in 2010.

Make too much of a fuss and they will just look absurd.

Make too little of a fuss and they look absurd/cowardly. You see the dilemma?

On a practical point: there is no such thing as Scottish TV: the broadcasts do not respect tbe border. Which raises the possibility of the broadcasts into Scotland being closed down by legal action (it has happened before) with the loss of those English viewers who also rely on the same transmitters.

There were debates on "Scottish TV" with representatives of the parties contesting seats in Scotland last time, though.

I don't see the point in a party that is contesting less than 10% of the seats in the country as a whole being involved in a debate that is broadcast to 100% of the country. A hypothetical voter in Devon isn't given the opportunity to vote for an SNP candidate, so from a practical point of view it would be nonsensical to have the SNP in the nationwide debates.

Carnyx

Indigo said:

Carnyx said:

On a practical point: there is no such thing as Scottish TV: the broadcasts do not respect tbe border. Which raises the possibility of the broadcasts into Scotland being closed down by legal action (it has happened before) with the loss of those English viewers who also rely on the same transmitters.

What was the basis of that legal action ?

Can't remember now, sorry. It might have been during a Holyrood election, come to think of it.

It's an unsatisfactory solution for any democratically inclined person whatever the judgement next time is. The original problem lies further south, and only the Tories and UKIP are true UK wide parties. I've seen an analysis which argues that the various debate proposals do not make any sense whatsoever criteria one uses. (I know it's Wings - but the logic is the same for far more than just the SNP.)

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-second-class-nation/#more-65303

FalseFlag

Farage has more charisma and certainly connects with ordinary people better than Cameron, plus he saw what happened to Clegg. There should be a debate though.

Sunil_Prasannan

Socrates said:

taffys said:

There are already two belting one liners from Al Murray doing the rounds on twitter.

If nothing else, our nige is going to need a sense of humour....

The Channel Tunnel line was brilliant. As was putting Boris Johnson on an island.

"The other parties offer a moon on a stick. We'll do better than that: a British moon on a British stick!"

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/555377299139612672

Eastwinger

blackburn63 said:

Tories can wriggle all they like, as Tebbitt says Cameron is frit. Farage finished off Clegg as a serious politician, Cameron is terrified of the same.

And that is why Ed won't debate Farage if Cam isn't there. Not difficult to understand why there will be a 5 and 2 or a 5 and 3 or nothing at all.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Carnyx, I believe that one of the independence debates was unavailable elsewhere, to the extent that even Scots in the south (of Scotland) were unable to receive it. That was a bit special, if I remember it correctly.

Carnyx

OblitusSumMe said:

Carnyx said:

Morris_Dancer said:

A Scottish dimension: let's say Cameron prevails and, with 3 or 4 debates, the Greens participate.

And the SNP don't. Would this harden the "Grr! Those Westminster types!" sentiment currently popular in Caledonia, or make no real difference?

It would make it very clear that Scottish MPs are seen as inferior to other MPs, unless they happen to be in the same party as English MPs, which is a remarkable doctrine for a Unionist party to hold. Just think about it. How that would be received by some. And in the current climate of promising the Vow.

It would also highlight Mr Miliband as Mr Murphy's boss.

OblitusSumMe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

A Scottish dimension: let's say Cameron prevails and, with 3 or 4 debates, the Greens participate.

And the SNP don't. Would this harden the "Grr! Those Westminster types!" sentiment currently popular in Caledonia, or make no real difference?

One assumes there will be a debate on Scottish TV between the SNP and other parties, and on Welsh TV with Plaid Cymru involved, just as in 2010.

Make too much of a fuss and they will just look absurd.

Make too little of a fuss and they look absurd/cowardly. You see the dilemma?

On a practical point: there is no such thing as Scottish TV: the broadcasts do not respect tbe border. Which raises the possibility of the broadcasts into Scotland being closed down by legal action (it has happened before) with the loss of those English viewers who also rely on the same transmitters.

There were debates on "Scottish TV" with representatives of the parties contesting seats in Scotland last time, though.

I don't see the point in a party that is contesting less than 10% of the seats in the country as a whole being involved in a debate that is broadcast to 100% of the country. A hypothetical voter in Devon isn't given the opportunity to vote for an SNP candidate, so from a practical point of view it would be nonsensical to have the SNP in the nationwide debates.

But the same is true of the English Greens. I can't vote for them here in Scotland. And Mr Cameron is terribly worried about them being included (though so he should be). Have a look at the analysis in the posting which I have just put.

blackburn63

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 63, over-egging the cake dramatically there. Clegg was like the Black Knight after fighting King Arthur. Yes, Farage stabbed him in the eye holes, but it wasn't the most difficult of tasks.

The result of that debate wasn't Farage killing a giant, but Clegg failing to regain credibility and Farage benefiting from having been generally considered to have won by a distance.

It wasn't coincidence that at the Euros UKIP won and the libs were decimated, soon after the debates. The Green thing is nothing but a smokescreen for Cameron, everybody has seen how flustered and flushed he gets under pressure. He, and senior tories, know that Farage would skewer him on so many levels.

SandyRentool

Nick Griffin choked on the oxygen of publicity when he appeared on Question Time.

If Cameron thought Farage wasn't up to it, he would be saying "bring it on". However, having seen what happened in the Clegg v Farage Eurogeddon debates, he knows that there is a significant chance that Farage will give him a total kicking. Hence his No Green, No Blue strategy.

Socrates

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.

No, it's predicated on a whole series of things, including most notably not wanting Farage to be portrayed as a serious player. (Since he isn't a serious player, this is fair enough).

If he wasn't a serious player, he'd be shown up by being put in the big boy's debate and Cameron would be itching to include him. But he's not. Because Farage is a serious player, as shown by Cameron running scared of him.

Not at all. In a debate with Miliband, Cameron can quite reasonably counter any populist nonsense by pointing out inconsistencies or gaps in Labour's alternative (and vice versa, for that matter). In a debate with Farage, that would not be possible because there is no pretence that UKIP has a coherent platform; Farage is not trying to propose anything, he's trying to throw stones at Cameron's windows.

Farage's proposals of a replacement of the EU with a simple trade agreement are far more consistent than Cameron's cack-handed attempt at reform. And Farage's proposals for a consistent points policy for EU and non-EU migrants are far more coherent than the ridiculous system we have now, where the wives of terrorists can come here and be put up in taxpayer funded housing. They're also a lot more consistent with net immigration in the "tens of thousands" (Cameron's pledge, no ifs, no buts) than the present system.

This whole game theory approach is based on Cameron being weaker than Farage when they're put up there with an objective moderator. You know this. I know this. CCHQ knows this. Which is why they can't have Cameron on stage looking foolish next to the guy.

taffys

"The other parties offer a moon on a stick. We'll do better than that: a British moon on a British stick!"

Sod the leadership debates. If the South Thanet hustings got televised now, I reckon it would bag a few million.

Carnyx

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, I believe that one of the independence debates was unavailable elsewhere, to the extent that even Scots in the south (of Scotland) were unable to receive it. That was a bit special, if I remember it correctly.

I seem to recall that was due to the anomalies of broadcasting in the UK which I was discussing - the broadcaster for the Borders didn't want to take it. Not good in my view. Either way.

OblitusSumMe

Socrates said:

But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.

I don't think that's how the argument goes. I think it is that, as the incumbent Prime Minister, Cameron has a certain air of gravitas and authority that the Opposition party leaders lack. Agreeing to a debate erodes the incumbency advantage, because it puts all the party leaders on the same stage, and Cameron ceases to look any different.

Thus the Prime Minister of the day only agrees to a debate when he is well behind and desperate for any opportunity to change the narrative. Cameron is not that far behind. Brown was. Presumably debates didn't happen in 1997 because Blair was so far ahead, while in 2010 Cameron's advantage over Brown was not so strong.

Sadly, it really isn't at all about policies, or arguments. Like most of modern politics it is about image.

isam

Cameron lapdogs accuse Farage of not wanting a referendum

They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?

(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)

But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.

You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP

Richard_Nabavi

Socrates said:

This whole game theory approach is based on Cameron being weaker than Farage when they're put up there with an objective moderator. You know this. I know this. CCHQ knows this. Which is why they can't have Cameron on stage looking foolish next to the guy.

No, it is based on the fact that a party of government, which has to take difficult decisions which all interact, is at a disadvantage against someone who is simply saying 'you're all rubbish'.

I'll grant you that Farage is particularly good at populist nonsense, yes. But we knew that.

isam

I believe Douglas Carswell swerved the first tv debate before the Clacton by election... can anybody link to the Tory reaction on here?

TGOHF

Scott_P said:

@MichaelPDeacon: Yes, it's happening: the Pub Landlord is standing against Nigel Farage in South Thanet at the general election http://t.co/XPhpqCBdb5

Cracking entertainment - the comedian vs. the windbag. Murray is a very witty chap and is an expert in putting down beer soaked hecklers like Farage.

I wonder if Nige's ego will take 4 months of constant ribbing.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Taffys, I'd watch them.

First FUKP party political's alright:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tADgYkAfXro

bigjohnowls

blackburn63 said:

Tories can wriggle all they like, as Tebbitt says Cameron is frit. Farage finished off Clegg as a serious politician, Cameron is terrified of the same.

Eastwinger said:

OGH has this one totally wrong. Cam will either get his way or the debates won't happen.

Who is right theres only one way to find out

Fight!!!

Perhaps the Pub landlord should be included in the debates too

taffys

Farage response....you have to give it to him

'finally a serious opponent in South Thanet...'

POW

OblitusSumMe

Carnyx said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Carnyx said:

Morris_Dancer said:

A Scottish dimension: let's say Cameron prevails and, with 3 or 4 debates, the Greens participate.

And the SNP don't. Would this harden the "Grr! Those Westminster types!" sentiment currently popular in Caledonia, or make no real difference?

It would make it very clear that Scottish MPs are seen as inferior to other MPs, unless they happen to be in the same party as English MPs, which is a remarkable doctrine for a Unionist party to hold. Just think about it. How that would be received by some. And in the current climate of promising the Vow.

It would also highlight Mr Miliband as Mr Murphy's boss.

OblitusSumMe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

A Scottish dimension: let's say Cameron prevails and, with 3 or 4 debates, the Greens participate.

And the SNP don't. Would this harden the "Grr! Those Westminster types!" sentiment currently popular in Caledonia, or make no real difference?

One assumes there will be a debate on Scottish TV between the SNP and other parties, and on Welsh TV with Plaid Cymru involved, just as in 2010.

Make too much of a fuss and they will just look absurd.

Make too little of a fuss and they look absurd/cowardly. You see the dilemma?

On a practical point: there is no such thing as Scottish TV: the broadcasts do not respect tbe border. Which raises the possibility of the broadcasts into Scotland being closed down by legal action (it has happened before) with the loss of those English viewers who also rely on the same transmitters.

There were debates on "Scottish TV" with representatives of the parties contesting seats in Scotland last time, though.

I don't see the point in a party that is contesting less than 10% of the seats in the country as a whole being involved in a debate that is broadcast to 100% of the country. A hypothetical voter in Devon isn't given the opportunity to vote for an SNP candidate, so from a practical point of view it would be nonsensical to have the SNP in the nationwide debates.

But the same is true of the English Greens. I can't vote for them here in Scotland. And Mr Cameron is terribly worried about them being included (though so he should be). Have a look at the analysis in the posting which I have just put.

I think that the Scottish Greens and Northern Irish Greens are sufficiently close in policy and outlook to the Green Party of England and Wales that they won't mind too much being represented in a UK-wide debate by their sister-party over the border, particularly if they are also represented in the Scottish/Northern Irish-only debates.

I don't think you can say the same about the SNP and the English Democrats.

Scrapheap_as_was

TGOHF said:

Scott_P said:

@MichaelPDeacon: Yes, it's happening: the Pub Landlord is standing against Nigel Farage in South Thanet at the general election http://t.co/XPhpqCBdb5

Cracking entertainment - the comedian vs. the windbag. Murray is a very witty chap and is an expert in putting down beer soaked hecklers like Farage.

I wonder if Nige's ego will take 4 months of constant ribbing.

Now this is a thread story!!!

Tim Shipman‏@ShippersUnbound·4 mins4 minutes ago
A joke that is also a genuinely important development. @almurray could actually prevent Farage winning: http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2015/01/14/al-murrays-pub-landlord-launches-election-campaign/#.VLaH0JF1nvA.twitter …

Socrates

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

This whole game theory approach is based on Cameron being weaker than Farage when they're put up there with an objective moderator. You know this. I know this. CCHQ knows this. Which is why they can't have Cameron on stage looking foolish next to the guy.

No, it is based on the fact that a party of government, which has to take difficult decisions which all interact, is at a disadvantage against someone who is simply saying 'you're all rubbish'.

I'll grant you that Farage is particularly good at populist nonsense, yes. But we knew that.

It was Cameron who promised things like immigration down to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts. You can't then turn around and say oh, it's difficult decisions in government. If so, why did Cameron tell people to vote him out if he didn't achieve it?

I've had junior employees like this. They'll make an excuse for anything.

If Cameron had faith that his arguments were better than Farage's he'd debate him. But he doesn't. So he won't.

calum

YouGov poll on the debates which shows 53% for Sturgeon inclusion (66% in Scotland):

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ph2go8efpw/RedBoxResults_150109_leaders_debates_Website.pdf

Perhaps SNP inclusion could be another redline for Dave, in the other parties debate. At the end of the day he has nothing to lose, but Ed has the whole of Scotland to lose, Sturgeon at the table with no Murphy would be a blow for SLAB. I think Ed would fight to keep the SNP out.

Richard_Nabavi

taffys said:

Farage response....you have to give it to him

'finally a serious opponent in South Thanet...'

That's good!

taffys

''Mr. Taffys, I'd watch them.

This could have a few unintended consequences. Murray's an Oxford graduate, sharp as a tack. But in the end politics is serious.

Socrates

OblitusSumMe said:

Socrates said:

But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.

I don't think that's how the argument goes. I think it is that, as the incumbent Prime Minister, Cameron has a certain air of gravitas and authority that the Opposition party leaders lack. Agreeing to a debate erodes the incumbency advantage, because it puts all the party leaders on the same stage, and Cameron ceases to look any different.

Except Cameron only started demanding the Greens get included when UKIP got major party status. This isn't about losing his gravitas by appearing in a debate. It's about running scared of Farage, who he knows will give him a kicking. It's that cowardice that makes him lose his gravitas. People prefer a strong, confident leader.

Eastwinger

bigjohnowls said:

blackburn63 said:

Tories can wriggle all they like, as Tebbitt says Cameron is frit. Farage finished off Clegg as a serious politician, Cameron is terrified of the same.

Eastwinger said:

OGH has this one totally wrong. Cam will either get his way or the debates won't happen.

Who is right theres only one way to find out

Fight!!!

Perhaps the Pub landlord should be included in the debates too

It amazes me, BJO, that people can't see that if Cam isn't there then there is no mileage in it for Ed. I can't see Ed wanting to debate Farage and Cleeg and an empty chair. Far too big a risk for too little retun. His only move would be to back out and blame Cam.

GIN1138

"Cameron’s big mistake was not killing off the debates a year ago"

Really? You think the public really care about this? LOL!

NickPalmer

I've no illusions about any of this - we are all looking for the most advantageous format. But Cameron does need to get debates, because with barely 100 days to go the polls aren't moving and he needs to roll the dice - exactly the same reason why Brown agreed, in fact. So I think they'll happen in the end, one way or another, and people would be wise to bet accordingly. (But do your own research etc.)

TGOHF

taffys said:

Farage response....you have to give it to him

'finally a serious opponent in South Thanet...'

POW

Al Murray has some justification in this sweet revenge - Farage basically stole his act - wave a pint around whilst abusing foreigners and yearning for the good old days.

Sean_F

Socrates said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.

You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).

But you know that, of course.

But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.

But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.

Granted that that is so, then it's sensible of Cameron not to want the debate - as Daniel Finkelstein argued today.

CD13

Quite a good move by Al Murray. Only a deposit to lose and loads of free publicity. I'm surprised more don't don't do it.

GIN1138

NickPalmer said:

because with barely 100 days to go the polls aren't moving

Not quite correct. Labour has been collapsing since Spring 2013 and judging by the polls so far this month they are continuing to fall...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#mediaviewer/File:UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Palmer, the Conservatives had a bigger lead over Labour in the run up to 2010's vote than Labour enjoys now. And the SNP are threatening to obliterate Labour in Scotland.

Cameron's position is significantly stronger than Brown's was.

Sunil_Prasannan

Do we know if the real-life Al Murray is a Leftie or reactionary?

TGOHF

Any odds on whether the Pub Landlord will beat the LDs ?

Socrates

taffys said:

''Mr. Taffys, I'd watch them.

This could have a few unintended consequences. Murray's an Oxford graduate, sharp as a tack. But in the end politics is serious.

The danger is to the Tory. Libs and Labs who don't like Farage will vote for Murray, hoping to stick two fingers up to UKIP, and the Conservatives won't get the tactical votes.

Neil

OblitusSumMe said:

I think that the Scottish Greens and Northern Irish Greens are sufficiently close in policy and outlook to the Green Party of England and Wales that they won't mind too much being represented in a UK-wide debate by their sister-party over the border, particularly if they are also represented in the Scottish/Northern Irish-only debates.

We had a common selection process for the nominee to the House of Lords when the Government indicated that might be on the cards. But let's not rule out the Scottish or Northern Irish Greens supplying the person to represent us all in the debates!

Socrates

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Do we know if the real-life Al Murray is a Leftie or reactionary?

Soft leftie I believe.

Bond_James_Bond

isam said:

Cameron lapdogs accuse Farage of not wanting a referendum

They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?

(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)

But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.

You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP

To claim to be pursuing a strategy that he knows perfectly well will scupper a referendum, while maintaining that it will enable a referendum, is plain lies.

Carnyx

OblitusSumMe said:

Carnyx said:

[edited] But the same is true of the English Greens. I can't vote for them here in Scotland. And Mr Cameron is terribly worried about them being included (though so he should be). Have a look at the analysis in the posting which I have just put.

I think that the Scottish Greens and Northern Irish Greens are sufficiently close in policy and outlook to the Green Party of England and Wales that they won't mind too much being represented in a UK-wide debate by their sister-party over the border, particularly if they are also represented in the Scottish/Northern Irish-only debates.

I don't think you can say the same about the SNP and the English Democrats.

But how do you know? they're separate parties and are entitled to have separate views - this is the whole point of the debate.

SLAB are not a separate party, so Mr Miliband has to stand for them.

On a wider issue, there is the point that polling shows that the southron voters would evidently quite like to hear what the SNP have to say. It may even be relevant to them in more ways than one expects, given the party's distinctive policies quite apart from those on indy.